[EL] Vote fraud -- evidence vs. belief

[Benjamin Barr]

There is a significant amount of talking past one another as Jim points
out.  Of course, it could just be that rather fundamental value beliefs are
in tension--values that are unlikely to be swayed by *a posteriori* arguments
from either side.  As Bill Mauer has noted before, the lack of existing
data to support voter ID has not moved the reform lobby to liberalize and
free election law regimes due to a similar lack of data (e.g., that
campaign finance provisions work, that the threat of corruption "or its
appearance" means something useful, that speaking freely is somehow
injurious to our democratic tradition, and so on), so, as both Jim and
David pointed out, something more fundamental must be going on here.

The same cultural issues spring up more generally in campaign finance.  For
example, many organizations I represent believe the government has no
rightful authority to snoop into their private affairs.  More often than
not, these groups are underfunded.  More often than not, they lack
connections to politicians and people of political influence.  They simply
want to speak freely without the insanity of complicated campaign finance
provisions slowing them down or muting them entirely.  And they earnestly
believe they have the right to do so and fully flex their First Amendment
rights without bowing to the leviathan of modern campaign finance
provisions.

But organizations who make a stand for their First Amendment rights face a
constant chorus of allegations from the reform lobby - that they're
secretly funded by "fat cats," that "shadowy organizations" are dominating
the political process, that "dark money" is being funneled in inappropriate
ways.  And that leaves earnest and principled First Amendment supporters
simply scratching their head, much like Jim does about voter fraud, "Why do
people continue to believe" in campaign finance? And much as Jim believes
many "on the right" have "convince[d] themselves that it is impossible --
literally impossible -- for people in any kind of numbers to support
liberal policies" many "on the left" have created similar boogeymen about
conservative fat cats controlling the electoral process, of Citizens United
destroying American democracy, and so many more Chicken Little anecdotes.

Fear, it seems, works a powerful and unfortunate warping effect against
human nature.

Forward,

First Amendment Ben



On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Jim Gardner <jgard at buffalo.edu> wrote:

>   The lack of evidence to support charges of vote fraud raises a more
> interesting and profound question: Why do people continue to believe in
> it?  The answer, it seems to me, has nothing to do with evidence – so
> arguing about the evidence is probably a waste of time – and a lot to do
> with culture, specifically the culture of contemporary politics.
>
> I think the problem here is that many on the right have managed to
> convince themselves that it is impossible – literally impossible – for
> people in any kind of numbers to support liberal policies.  Since people
> can’t possibly support such policies, they can’t possibly vote for liberal
> candidates.  Consequently, if liberal candidates win, it can only be the
> result of fraud because nobody could actually vote for such people.
>
> This problem is cultural.  It reveals a very sad fact about our current
> politics, namely that the views, beliefs, and experiences of other human
> beings are so completely dismissed and devalued in some quarters that many
> find it impossible to take seriously the possibility that their fellow
> citizens could actually hold certain views (much less actually take those
> views seriously or engage with them on the merits).
>
> I hasten to add that the political valence does not always run in the same
> direction.  For example, the “What’s the Matter with Kansas” analysis holds
> that working class voters couldn’t possibly support candidates who support
> policies that disadvantage them economically, although proponents of this
> view explain it by brainwashing rather than vote fraud.  But this
> explanation doesn’t take seriously the possibility that social and
> symbolically resonant issues could actually be more important than economic
> ones to some segments of the population.
>
> Until we start taking each other seriously as political agents, we’re not
> going to extract ourselves from the current impasse.
>
> Jim
>
> ________________________________
> James A. Gardner
> Joseph W. Belluck and Laura L. Aswad
>   SUNY Distinguished Professor of Civil Justice
> SUNY Buffalo Law School
> The State University of New York
> Room 316, O'Brian Hall
> Buffalo, NY 14260-1100
> voice: 716-645-3607
> fax: 716-645-5968
> e-mail: jgard at buffalo.edu
> www.law.buffalo.edu
> Papers at http://ssrn.com/author=40126
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120720/85bbb13b/attachment.html>